Bob Kerrey in the WSJ: Pride and Prejudice

[question everything]

The Wall Street Journal

Pride and Prejudice

By BOB KERREY
February 1, 2005; Page A12


(snip)

Coupled with the cost of Medicare and Medicaid, the annual benefit demands of Social Security will put real pressure on Congress to cut spending on defense and nondefense appropriations. It is at this point in time that the demographic and monetary demands of the baby boom generation will become painfully apparent. The disinvestment in public infrastructure caused by the growth in Medicare and Medicaid will become even worse than it is today. And the nature of this crisis will be considerably more daunting than that faced squarely by Congress and the president in 1983. Liberals, who have silently watched the share of state and federal spending apportioned to the elderly grow at the expense of education, training, child care and research, will be appalled to discover how much their silence has cost them.

The second crisis is the one for which liberals are even more urgently needed. This crisis is the shockingly low rates of savings and pitifully inadequate amount of preparation being made by American households for their old age. If liberals were to join this debate and insist upon provisions that would lead to dramatic reductions of the numbers of poor elderly, the outcome could be a dramatically enhanced quality of life for all, reduced dependency upon welfare in old age, and downward pressure on the social costs of growing old.

If liberals joined this debate they would insist that the guaranteed transfer payment of Social Security remain intact. With the evidence that trade, technology and immigration are putting downward pressure on unskilled wages, they might even be able to succeed in changing the current benefit formula so that more than 50% of the first $900 of income was replaced. Perhaps they could even convince their Republican colleagues to eliminate penalties that affect stay-at-home women.

Liberals would fight to make certain that contributions to private accounts were progressive in order to benefit lower-wage workers. They might even argue that accounts be opened at birth, thus giving Americans the longest possible time to accumulate wealth. No doubt they would insist that investment options be carefully regulated to keep administrative costs and risks as low as possible. And since liberals oftentimes understand the good that markets can do even more than some of their conservative colleagues, they could see the wisdom of changing the tax code so that no income taxes were levied on income that went into these savings accounts. All of these would practically guarantee a muscular market response that would give future Americans larger amounts of insured non-employment income to add to the $800 per month on average they receive from Social Security.

(snip)


Mr. Kerrey, a Democratic former senator from Nebraska, is the president of New School University, in New York City.

URL for this article:
http://online.wsj.com/article/0,,SB110722616376541986,00.html

[pretzel4gore]

1. let the repukes worry about it guy

this kerrey guy should take care of his estates, his investments, and his many homes and leave the future to those who own it, the nazipoos (republican party members etc)...